Context: The CNN in this experiment is the CNN of 2020. The network has changed considerably since, so these results describe that moment in time.
In an era of deep political polarization, many of us wonder if “breaking the bubble” is actually possible. We often assume people are locked into their ideological silos, but a field experiment by political scientists David Broockman and Joshua Kalla suggests that what we believe depends heavily on which news we happen to see.
In September 2020, the researchers recruited several hundred regular Fox News viewers, nearly all of them strong Republicans. Four in ten were randomly assigned to switch channels. For a little over three weeks, they were paid $15 an hour to watch about seven hours of CNN per week instead of Fox, scheduled during the times they normally watched. They weren’t asked to change their minds; they were simply paid to change the channel.
The results were striking. Compared with viewers who kept watching Fox, those who switched became better informed about events Fox had covered less, like the COVID-19 pandemic, and about the candidates’ positions. They became more supportive of mail-in voting, somewhat less favorable toward Donald Trump, and more likely to believe that Fox wouldn’t report on Trump’s mistakes. The researchers call this “partisan coverage filtering”: each network selectively covers stories that help its side.
The shifts had limits, though. The participants’ partisanship and voting intentions barely moved, and many of the changes faded once they went back to their usual viewing. The authors didn’t frame this as good news. Their takeaway was that partisan media shapes what its audience believes, which suggests that people can leave the bubble, but also that the bubble works powerfully on anyone who stays inside it.
Source: EGAP interview with David Broockman and Joshua Kalla on their study, “The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers.”
How to Widen Your News Diet
The lesson of this study isn’t that one network is good and the other is bad. It’s that any single outlet shows you a filtered slice of what’s happening. A few habits can help you see more of the picture:
- Start with the wire services. The Associated Press and Reuters supply the basic facts that many other outlets build their stories on, with far less commentary layered on top.
- Compare coverage side by side. Ground News groups reporting on the same story from outlets across the political spectrum and flags “blindspot” stories that one side largely ignores, which is the same kind of filtering this study uncovered.
- Try outlets that aim for straight reporting. Straight Arrow News (SAN) is one that positions itself as unbiased. Checking any outlet against media-bias ratings like AllSides or Ad Fontes Media is a good habit.
- Follow independent journalists carefully. Look for ones who cite their sources, correct their mistakes publicly, and do original reporting rather than just commentary.
- Spend some time on the other side. Now and then, read a reputable outlet that leans differently from your usual source. You don’t have to agree with it to learn what your own feed leaves out.
You don’t need to be paid $15 an hour to change the channel. You just need to start noticing what your usual source isn’t telling you.